Just remember everyone, calling in fatigued, and choosing to not accept an extension because you would not be fit to operate it are two distinctly different things. If you call in fatigued, it ties their hands, and they have to put you into rest right away. If you say you cannot accept an extension, then they can reroute you into a shorter segment that does not require an extension.
Everyone is different, but for me, the longer the flight that will operate into the two hour extension, the harder it is to be sure I would be fit to fly by the end of that flight. I don't think the company is going after people who choose not to extend. I also doubt they are going after people who call in fatigued unless it is just exceedingly obvious abuse. In that case, wouldn't you want the company to go after them? I know there are exceptions and sometimes an innocent person gets caught up or falsely targeted, but most of the times when I hear all of the facts from both sides I see why the company chooses to investigate certain actions. The key with sick leave, fatigue, and extensions, is if you are actually not ready to go, you shouldn't fly. One of the reasons we get paid the big bucks is to make these sometimes tough decisions. Be safe out there. |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2834233)
Just remember you can’t extend after you have been rerouted.
I actually believe the post about looking for people to make examples of. I called in fatigue one time years ago and ended up getting calls from 2 duty pilots and a chief pilot. The chief pilot was threatening my pay even though there was no legit threat as I was content getting paid for what I actually did (my call was at end of rotation when I was rerouted to fly instead of deadhead). Fatiguing out is absolutely more hassle than continuing. |
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 2834363)
This is false. I had an incident last week where I got a reroute that showed me getting in 9 minutes before having to extend. When I looked closer at rotation, I realized they had the flight attendants were scheduled for a 20 minute turn. Obviously our reroute went into the extension. I called crew tracking and the 24 hour ALPA line. I was told by both that it was a legal reroute and I wasn't rerouted into an extension but delayed into an extension.
These extensions are BS. They circumvent the safety recommendations of the research and effectively returned the length of duty to the pre-117 limitless day. You choose to extend, then hold or exceed the extension because of operational issues once airborne, next thing you know the duty day is way over the “limit.” I actually believe the post about looking for people to make examples of. I called in fatigue one time years ago and ended up getting calls from 2 duty pilots and a chief pilot. The chief pilot was threatening my pay even though there was no legit threat as I was content getting paid for what I actually did (my call was at end of rotation when I was rerouted to fly instead of deadhead). Fatiguing out is absolutely more hassle than continuing. |
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 2834363)
I actually believe the post about looking for people to make examples of. I called in fatigue one time years ago and ended up getting calls from 2 duty pilots and a chief pilot. The chief pilot was threatening my pay even though there was no legit threat as I was content getting paid for what I actually did (my call was at end of rotation when I was rerouted to fly instead of deadhead). Fatiguing out is absolutely more hassle than continuing. Since the last Contract there is a process now for fatigue calls and pay. Dalpa periodically puts out the statistics and an Overwhelming majority of pilots are getting paid. |
You known your fatigued when you are frustrated dealing with calculating extensions of every crew member to see if you can legally operate the flight.
|
Was told the story of a recent fatigue call...
LCA was rerouted with his F/O into a long and challenging day and subsequently called in fatigued; F/O also called in. Review board was willing to pay the captain, but initially declined to pay-protect the F/O on the identical rotation. They reportedly said “he bid to fly with LCAs, that’s on him.” LCA followed up, justifiably livid and was reported to have succeeded in overturning the board’s decision. How anyone on this board found bidding strategy relevant to fatigue pay protection determination (clearly iaw the PWA and normal PBS functionality) is beyond me. If I ever trusted the system before, I sure don’t any longer. |
Originally Posted by TED74
(Post 2834375)
Was told the story of a recent fatigue call...
LCA was rerouted with his F/O into a long and challenging day and subsequently called in fatigued; F/O also called in. Review board was willing to pay the captain, but initially declined to pay-protect the F/O on the identical rotation. They said “he bid to fly with LCAs, that’s on him.” LCA followed up, justifiably livid and was reported to have succeeded in overturning the board’s decision. How anyone on this board found bidding strategy relevant to fatigue pay protection determination (clearly iaw the PWA and normal PBS functionality) is beyond me. If I ever trusted the system before, I sure don’t any longer. |
Originally Posted by TED74
(Post 2834375)
Was told the story of a recent fatigue call...
LCA was rerouted with his F/O into a long and challenging day and subsequently called in fatigued; F/O also called in. Review board was willing to pay the captain, but initially declined to pay-protect the F/O on the identical rotation. They reportedly said “he bid to fly with LCAs, that’s on him.” LCA followed up, justifiably livid and was reported to have succeeded in overturning the board’s decision. How anyone on this board found bidding strategy relevant to fatigue pay protection determination (clearly iaw the PWA and normal PBS functionality) is beyond me. If I ever trusted the system before, I sure don’t any longer. |
Originally Posted by TED74
(Post 2834375)
Was told the story of a recent fatigue call...
LCA was rerouted with his F/O into a long and challenging day and subsequently called in fatigued; F/O also called in. Review board was willing to pay the captain, but initially declined to pay-protect the F/O on the identical rotation. They reportedly said “he bid to fly with LCAs, that’s on him.” LCA followed up, justifiably livid and was reported to have succeeded in overturning the board’s decision. How anyone on this board found bidding strategy relevant to fatigue pay protection determination (clearly iaw the PWA and normal PBS functionality) is beyond me. If I ever trusted the system before, I sure don’t any longer. |
Originally Posted by TED74
(Post 2834375)
They reportedly said “he bid to fly with LCAs, that’s on him.” LCA followed up, justifiably livid and was reported to have succeeded in overturning the board’s decision.
. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:32 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands